See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241698666

The police in Norway: A profile

Article  in  Policing An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management · September 2001

DOI: 10.1108/13639510110401708

CITATIONS READS

8 910

2 authors, including:

Amanda L Robinson
Cardiff University
97 PUBLICATIONS   1,997 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New initiatives to tackle domestic violence perpetrators using the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool (PPIT) View project

Research on domestic violence risk assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amanda L Robinson on 18 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


PIJPSM
24,3
330
Policing: A n International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2001, pp. 330-346.
# MCB University Press, 1363-951X
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
The police in Norway: a profile
Dilip K. Das
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, SUNY Plattsburgh,
Plattsburgh, NY, USA, and
Amanda L. Robinson
School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK
Keywords Police, Norway, Interviews
Abstract This paper describes the current state of policing in Norway. Interview data were
collected from police administrators, police academy instructors, and police recruits. In addition,
observational data were collected from patrol ride-alongs. The organizational structure of
Norwegian police at the national level; individual police stations; police recruitment and training;
traffic regulation, law enforcement, order maintenance and crime prevention; and police-public
interactions in Norway are discussed. Distinct features of the Norwegian police include a flat
hierarchy, strong union influence, and informal selection methods, all of which derive from the
unique sociodemographic and geographic landscape of Norway combined with the influence of
British and European models of policing.
Introduction
Norway is a sparsely inhabited country with a population of about 4.5 million
people, most of whom live in urban areas in the southern region, most notably
Oslo, the country’s capital. The government of Norway is a constitutional
monarchy. The government (consisting of a prime minister and a State Council)
is chosen by the monarch with approval by the Storting (National Assembly or
legislature). Norway’s constitution, drafted in 1814, was influenced by the
British political system, the French revolution, and the constitution of the USA.
Not surprisingly, these influences also have had a lasting impact on the
organization, roles, and responsibilities of the Norwegian police.
In large part due to its geographical characteristics and location, Norway
has maintained a great homogeneity among its people (96 percent of the
population is ethnically Norwegian) and their way of life (90 percent are
Lutheran). Evidence of national consensus regarding political and economic
topics, combined with abundant waterpower, petroleum resources, and stable
labor relations, have facilitated the emergence of Norway as an advanced
industrial nation with one of the highest standards of living in the world. These
characteristics have also shaped the nature of police work in Norway, as will be
evident in the following profile of the Norwegian police.
Norway has a tradition of local autonomy. The country is divided into 20
fylke (provinces or counties) and 450 communes (similar to a census tract in the
USA). The chief of the fylke, its assembly, and its commune offices are
responsible for all public services. Every fylke has four or five courts on the
average, with some courts serving multiple communes depending on the
distance between courts and the size of the population served. As in other
countries with similar traditions, namely the USA, a significant degree of local
control and autonomy over criminal justice practices also leads to some variety The police in
in policing when departments are viewed on a national scale. Norway: a profile
The following account of the police in Norway, which describes their
organizational structure and policies, function, and police-public interactions, is
presented with the goal of explaining modern Norwegian police as the product
of multiple influences. First, there exist several features unique to the police in
Norway (e.g. flat hierarchy, all pervasive presence of the police union, extensive 331
intelligence orientation, and a homespun approach to hiring recruits). Second,
influences by the British and continental traditions (e.g. crime prevention as an
essential role, unarmed policing, police as prosecutors, and the civil
administration function) have had an undeniable mark on the police in Norway.
Third, the police in Norway are also shaped by the culture stemming from
characteristics of their occupation (i.e. the police occupational culture).

Research methodology
Data collection for this research took place in 1995, when the first author
(hereafter ``researcher’’) spent ten days in Oslo as a guest of the local police.
During this stay, the researcher talked with several (n = 19) police informants
of various ranks. First, four police administrators at the Oslo police
headquarters were consulted. The researcher was then allowed to visit the local
police training school, where he talked with several police recruits undergoing
training (n = 10) and some of their instructors (n = 5). These informal
interviews with the police administrators, police training school instructors,
and police recruits allowed the researcher to gather police information and
insights regarding Norwegian police organizational structure, recruitment and
training, functions of the police, and police-public interactions.
The researcher was also allowed to visit several police stations in Oslo and
the surrounding areas. He observed motorized street patrols as well as traffic
patrols on the Norwegian highways. During this field observation, the
researcher probed the officers for their descriptions and explanations regarding
the activities in which they were engaged. He also made note of the officers’
body language when it represented signs of fear, disgust, nervousness, and
annoyance as they encountered drug scenes, boisterous groups, and people
loitering in deteriorated parts of urban Norway. Police and citizen comments
were transcribed in a journal.
Acting on a suggestion from the eminent Norwegian criminologist, Nils
Christie (1995, personal interview), the researcher visited a prison and talked to
a number of prisoners (n = 5) about their opinions of the police. According to
Christie, prisoners can provide an alternative, contrasting and interesting
source of information on specific officers and police practices in general. The
prisoners interviewed were not under direct supervision by prison officials
when the researcher talked with them. A good rapport was established and
many valuable comments about the police obtained.
In 1999 the researcher shared his field notes with a senior police official in
Norway (1999, personal interview with Asbjorn Finaker) as a check on veracity
PIJPSM while they were both in El Salvador helping to establish a democratic police
24,3 agency. During the next year, the notes were shared with another Norwegian
police official (2000, personal interview with Halvor Hartz) who was working in
New York with the United Nations. Both of these high-ranking Norwegian
police officers agreed with the factual description presented in this profile.
Finally, this field research was placed in the context of existing research on the
332 Norwegian police. Based on observations, comments of Norwegian police
experts, and library research, the authors believe that the profile presented here
offers a brief but accurate glimpse into today’s Norwegian police.

Norwegian police organizational structure

Historical background
The police in Norway trace their roots to the Vekter and, also, to the English
police. In 1687[1], the first Politimester (police chief, a designation in use to this
day) was appointed. He was the head of the Vekter corps. The Vekter, who was
similar to the English watchman and the predecessor of the modern Norwegian
police officer, carried a long stick, walked around at night, and called the hour.
Even today, the police are referred to as Vekter, an honorable institution and a
Norwegian tradition. It is also interesting to note that currently in Norway
private security companies call themselves Vekter companies and their
personnel carry on their uniform the label, ``Vekter’’.
In 1866[2], the police constabulary, patterned after the London model
developed by Sir Robert Peel, was introduced in Norway. The Norwegian police
have borrowed extensively from the practices of the London Metropolitan
Police in that they are decentralized and focus on the prevention of crime and
disorder; however, they also borrow from the French or continental model
because they are centralized under the national government and do not
separate judicial and executive functions (Becker, 1973; Hjellemo, 1979)[3]. Like
the Japanese police who borrowed from the Western model and changed it to
suit the local conditions (Bayley, 1991; Das, 1994), the police in Norway, too,
incorporated both British and French models to suit the Norwegian situation.
During the decade of 1965 to 1975, government spending on policing in
Norway increased 71 percent. Three trends characterize the development of
modern Norwegian police:
(1) reduction in the relative independence of local police units;
(2) a shift from an ideology of persuasion to one of coercion, marked by a
reduction in police-public contact due to technological advances; and
(3) a steady increase in resources allocated to police (Lorentzen, 1980).
These characteristics have been witnessed in the other Scandinavian countries
as well as the police practices in most Western countries at the end of the
twentieth century. Another important international development is the drive to
expand the police mandate and reinforce the militaristic law enforcement
functions in the face of rising public concern about crime (Lorentzen, 1980; The police in
Manning, 1997). Norway: a profile
Organizational structure at the national level
There are five police regions in the country: Eastern, Western, Middle,
Northern and Southern. In each region there are a number of police districts
(formerly called Politikammer ) which employ the country’s police force of 333
approximately 6,800 officers in 1993 (Bygrave, 1997). Recent statistics indicate
that Norway has a low rate of police per capita compared to other European
countries (Benyon et al., 1995). Norway’s 54 police districts are further divided
into police stations and Sheriff offices (Lensmannkontors , which are in the
process of elimination). Each Norwegian police district operates independently
(local autonomy) but must remain in accordance with national procedures and
policies specified by the Ministry of Justice and Police (centralized control)
(Becker, 1973). In the Eastern region there are 25 police districts, four in the
Western, six in the Middle, nine in the Northern, and five in the Southern.
Lensmann, or rural law enforcement officers similar to American county
sheriffs, originated in Norway in the twelfth century (Hjellemo, 1979). In every
Sheriff office (Lensmannskontor ) there used to be one Chief (Lensmann) and
from two to seven Deputies (Lensmannbetjents ). In day to day matters, they
were autonomous in the sense that they did not work as part of another police
formation; however, their cases were prosecuted through the police districts
(Politikammer ). The primary duties of Lensmann were fiscal ± collecting fines
and taxes like their counterpart, the English sheriff ± and the root of the word
(len) denotes this fiscal responsibility (Hjellemo, 1979).
In recent years, as it has happened in the UK, Sweden and other countries of
the world, there has been a trend towards amalgamation. While some
Lensmann continue to work, and will do so until they retire, in general the
Lensmannkontors have been converted to police stations. While the
Lensmannkontors of the former days functioned independently, the personnel
were recruited, trained[4], and financed by the national government. Although
a quarter-century ago Lensmann constituted approximately one-quarter of
Norwegian police (Becker, 1973), today the Lensmann are no longer a separate
entity in Norway.
It is to be noted that, of the police in Western societies, Norway has one of the
lightest hierarchical structures. At the lowest level of the police station there
are the Politikonstabel (police constables) and the Overkonstabel (senior
constables). There is only one middle ranking position; the Politibetijent
(sergeant). Within police stations, upper-level management includes the
Politforstebetjent (chief inspectors), followed by the Politiavdelingssjef (division
chiefs), and most senior are the Politistasjonssef (police station chiefs).
Prosecutors also have three ranks: Politifullmektig ; Politiadjutant; and
Politiinspektor. The chief of a police district is the Politimester (police district
chief). To the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist another police
department in the world with such a simplified rank structure.
PIJPSM In 1958 a central bureau (Kriminalpolitisentralen or ``Kripos’’) was created to
24,3 assist local police (Hjellemo, 1979). The Kripos or National Bureau of Crime
Investigation is a national advisory body that can take up an investigation at
the request of the local police. It also collects and maintains criminal records for
Norway, similar to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the USA. Other
duties consist of providing access to fingerprints, crime laboratory functions,
334 technical expertise, and Interpol.

Organization of individual police stations

Observational data regarding several examples of typical Norwegian police
stations are presented in this section. Each of Norway’s police stations
functions as the first line of police service delivery to the public and is divided
into five bureaus: patrol, detective, traffic, legal officer, and rural sheriffs
(Becker, 1973; Hjellemo, 1979). On visits to the Greenland (Gronland) police
station in Oslo, one notices that the ground floor is utilized for activities
resembling civil administrative service to the public: licenses, passports,
registrations, and other administrative matters that in some countries are
handled by municipal offices. The prison area is located in the central area of
the first floor, and is manned by police constables. Normally, suspects are kept
here by the police for 24 hours; however, they can be kept for up to two to three
weeks if a court orders longer detention, and they may even be held for two
days, for example in case of holidays, without such orders. Altogether, there are
100 cells including ``drunk cells’’; drunkards are kept with other suspects. The
prisoners remanded by court orders are kept separately and in such cells
women, suspects or drunkards are not kept together. Convicted persons are
temporarily kept here until there is room in a regular prison. It is interesting to
note that the police work as prison guards ± a situation not unique to Norway
since the police in Austria, Egypt, Bhutan, Guatemala, and other countries also
perform prison-related functions.
Besides the prison division, the Greenland police station has other bureaus.
Detectives (Kriminalpoliti ), prosecutors and the communication center occupy
several rooms. Seven to eight personnel (detectives and police constables) work
in a group in the police station, with chief inspectors assigned to supervise each
group. Administrative offices include a training facility for recruits coming into
Oslo. These recruits, similar to other recruits in capital cities around the world,
receive longer training than their counterparts working in other police stations.
Other miscellaneous facilities also may be located in Norwegian police
stations. For example, there are medical facilities (the police have their own
doctors) in the Greenland police station, as well as union offices. The union,
called the Norwegian Police Union[5], has an area in this station as in every
police station. The Greenland station building also holds a police telephone
exchange, and a gymnasium for the administration and police officers.
In Norway, there are four uniform personnel shifts and three shifts for
detectives. These shifts rotate every fourth week. One hundred police personnel
work in the Greenland police station, and one interesting feature of Norwegian
police is that some officers are devoted exclusively to crime prevention within The police in
their jurisdiction. For example, there are about 20 crime prevention divisions in Norway: a profile
the city of Oslo.
A visit to the Oslo city police station, with its 135 personnel, brings to an
observer’s attention aspects similar to the Greenland police station. For
example, one notes that in Norway, as elsewhere, uniformed police conduct
some investigation, although this is the primary responsibility of detectives. A 335
chief inspector serves as supervisor for a shift; he or she, in turn, works under
the police station chief. There is also a division chief to supervise detectives
working in the station. Compared to Greenland’s 100 cells, there are but five
cells here, and the prisoners are only kept for a few hours. Five personnel are
responsible for crime prevention. The local union representative has an office in
this station. Finally, the station’s gymnasium is shared among member of the
police and the public. Although it is too small a matter from which to draw any
firm conclusion, the sharing of the police gymnasium is indicative of an open
door policy of the police in Norway, which we discuss later in the essay in the
section on police-public interactions.
Unlike most Norwegian police stations, some of the smaller police stations
rent space in private buildings. For example, the Manglerud police station
houses 60 uniform personnel in addition to the local Criminal Investigation
Department (CID) and the Crime Prevention Division (seven members
supervised by a chief inspector). On the top floor there are other offices,
including a dentist’s office. Another example is the Majorstua police station,
which is manned by about 45 uniformed personnel, eight detectives (local CID),
and five crime prevention personnel. These personnel come under the
supervision of the station’s chief inspector. The top floor of this building houses
a private firm. These examples demonstrate that some of the smaller police
stations share close quarters with other, non-criminal justice related,
organizations. One implication of this arrangement may be that the police are
less isolated from the public they serve, as seen in the example of sharing the
police gymnasium with the public.
As previously mentioned, each of Norway’s 20 fylke or counties is divided
into a number of police districts, totaling 54 nationwide. One example of a fylke
with multiple police districts is the Hedmark Fylke, with three districts: Hamar,
Osterdal and Kongsvinger. Hamar has nine uniform personnel, seven
detectives, six Overevaaknings (secret service), one chief inspector, one
Politivakt (desk officer), and six Lensmannskontorer (deputy sheriffs who are
being eliminated). The institution of ``secret service’’ seems very unlike the UK
tradition, but it must be understood that there is a strong and practical reason
for Norwegian concerns for intelligence and that it is the fear of the Russian big
brother next door. In addition to the intelligence personnel located in local
police stations, the researcher had an experience that is illustrative of Norway’s
great concern for national security[7]. While on patrol with the police, he was
shown from the road a NATO facility at a distance. The researcher made some
inquiries generally about the establishment, and the next day his university
PIJPSM back in the USA informed him that the police in Oslo were curious about his
24,3 questions regarding NATO (the police had telephoned the researcher’s
university supervisor). As a result, the researcher had to do some explaining to
establish that he was not a security threat (i.e. a spy).
In contrast to many nations, Norway only has one land border, to the east.
The country’s jagged shoreline and approximately 50,000 islands represent a
336 unique challenge for the police. The 15 personnel of the harbor police station,
located in Oslo, work in three shifts. They are responsible for police patrols on
boats. Fast boats are used for investigation in regional areas, as the police
consider them to be more effective. Investigated by harbor police are boat
thefts, thefts from boats, drunken sailing, sailing without license and sailing
over the speed limit. Every police officer working in the harbor police station
has a marine background; for example, they are skilled at fishing, diving, and
have special licenses for driving a boat on the sea.

Police recruitment and training

Every recruit, between the ages of 19 and 28, must have high school education
(7 to 19 years in school or 12 years in Videregaende Skole). Good health and
blameless reputation are also essential qualifications. The reputation check is
done through the records in the central register for crimes in addition to
informal interviews with police officers about the candidate. In this respect, the
Norwegian practice is similar to that of police recruitment in New Zealand,
where the reputation of the police candidate is considered very important
(Das, 1993). Inquiries about reputation are conducted through personal
conversations with the potential police recruit’s family members, neighbors,
school teachers, members of their sports club, and so on. In cases of suspicion,
full verification through formal police channels is completed.
In Norway, there seems to be an emphasis on the informal as well as formal
methods of selection. One of the factors influencing a reliance on informality in
the selection process is when the police are located in small homogeneous
societies where they command respect as moral agents[8] (e.g. Norway and
New Zealand). It has been documented elsewhere that the strong Norwegian
heritage contributes to a ``high degree of political and social stability’’ (Becker,
1973, p. 128) which lends itself to police practices not feasible in heterogeneous
societies comprising many different and divergent cultural backgrounds.
Candidates are not required to pass a written or psychological examination. A
physical fitness test and a medical examination are all that are required, aside
from the background or reputation check.
Also in contrast to the other Western societies, such as the USA, Norway
does not impose quotas for the hiring of women or ethnic minorities[9]. Instead,
anyone who wishes to apply for the post of a police official may go to the local
police station where he or she is given a form to complete. After this initial
phase of the application process, the division chief (Politiavdelingssjef )
interviews the applicant. If the applicant completes the interview satisfactorily,
then he or she is provided a more personal, in-depth form to complete. The
interviewing officer includes his or her comments on the suitability of the The police in
applicant in this second form. After the interview, the police station officer Norway: a profile
summarizes his comments in a report and forwards all of the applicant’s
paperwork to the recruitment board, which consists of the chief of the police
school and union representatives. For example, at the time of the field research,
the Halden recruitment board consisted of:
337
(1) the female chief of police;
(2) a representative from the Norsk Politiforbund (a non-law-degree police
officers’ union with whom the older Norsk Lensmannslag, the rural
police officers’ union, has now merged); and
(3) one representative from the Norsk Lensmannslag (the rural police chiefs’
union).
The influence of the unions in the recruitment of police officials is interesting.
One is reminded that the US civil service was created expressly to remove
political influence and favoritism from personnel decisions (Walker, 1999).
In earlier days, police recruits attended the National Police Academy
(Politihogskolen ), located in Oslo. During the three months of training, seven
weeks were spent on police subjects (e.g. arrests, investigation, patrolling, etc.).
Recruits were then taken to an area (which used to be an army camp) for five
weeks of training in firearms, life saving techniques, traffic control and
handling dangerous persons. After completing this phase, recruits were then
assigned to a police station for one year of practical work under the supervision
of an experienced officer (similar to a US rookie’s supervision by a field training
officer). The supervising officer’s primary responsibility was field training, and
he submitted a report detailing the recruit’s performance. In recent years,
however, Norway has redoubled the stress on recruit training in addition to
combining it with one year of practical field experience, as it was before. The
current practice is more than double that of the past (three years versus one
year three months) and consists of three stages:
(1) recruits attend a police academy for one year (instead of only three
months);
(2) one year is then spent in field training (where the recruit actually works
as a constable);
(3) after satisfactorily completing their field experience, recruits return to
the Police Academy for another year of advanced schooling.
In cases of poor performance, the recruitment board decides whether recruits
should be asked to leave.
Every police constable in Norway returns to police school after five years on
the job for continuing education. Upon completion, the officer is then promoted
to a rank of senior constable (Overkonstabel ). All officers are promoted at the
end of ten years of service to become sergeant (Politibetjent ). Police officers
PIJPSM seeking promotion to upper management (e.g. rank of superintendent) must
24,3 have completed a university degree in law (Bygrave, 1997).

The function of Norwegian police

Apart from regular police work, which involves law enforcement, order
maintenance and service, the police in Norway also have administrative
338 functions. This makes them similar to their counterparts on the European
continent, but in contrast to the USA where these activities are under the
purview of Secretary of State offices or municipal courts. In the administrative
office of the police, people apply for passports, driving licenses, pay fines, and
so on. Licenses for weapons (for shotguns no license is required), small boats,
special events (demonstrations), cab drivers and bus drivers are issued by the
police. The police also maintain a lost and found property office and a ``foreign
office’’ for dealing with immigration and naturalization issues. The auction of
property in connection with bankruptcy proceedings, the settlement of estates
in cases of death, and the registration of estates were all done by Lensmann
when this institution existed; today this takes place in police stations.
Police in Norway are also more formally connected with the courts; some
officers have public prosecution authority[10]. Senior officers may also work as
prosecutors; for example, the Politiinspector, second-in-command under the
police district chief (Politimester ), is also the chief prosecutor of the district. He
or she would supervise the Politifullmektig who is lowest ranking prosecutor, as
well as the Politiadjutant or middle ranking prosecutor. Although some
prosecutors also can be police officers, all prosecutors are lawyers. Police
officers also act as prison officers because in some cases there are prison
facilities attached to police stations.

Traffic regulation
We are including the traffic regulation aspect of police work in Norway as the
researcher had a direct experience of it during the field research. A police
station is responsible for parking tickets, speeding violations, and traffic
accidents. In Norway traffic checks are done by two police cars. One car with a
radar takes cover in a forest, while the other car stops vehicles and gives
tickets. Up to the speed of 30 kilometers beyond the 80 kilometers speed limit,
the police on the street can give a fine. Beyond that, however, the fine must be
decided by a Senior Constable at the police station. Unlike Finland, there is not
a chart of income considered by the police while imposing fines for traffic
violations. The researcher was told that about 400 people die in car accidents in
Norway per year, and another 11,000 are injured, indicating that despite police
vigilance in this area, traffic on the road is not without its usual quota of
hazards.
According to police officers engaged in traffic policing, traffic regulation is
considered ``clean work’’ because they do not have to deal with the ``bad people’’
or ``dumbs’’ encountered in order maintenance and law enforcement activities
(see Muir, 1977). Traffic regulation is, therefore, a coveted assignment. Only
about 5 percent of the 800,000 cars checked every year are found violating the The police in
speed limit. Of these, about 6,000 drivers are found driving under influence (of Norway: a profile
mainly alcohol) per year[11], and a small proportion of these drivers are also
under the influence of illicit drugs. According to the police, it is almost
impossible to demonstrate the degree of drug intoxication considered
dangerous for driving. Although there are legal guidelines in this area, police
officers tend to make use of discretion. 339
Law enforcement
During conversations with police the researcher learned that they encounter
street fighting, drunken driving and drug abuses on a daily basis. Norwegian
police pay special attention to drug activities[12], which can take place in the
streets of large urban areas like Oslo (a city of almost 500,000). The number of
reported drug offenses has increased by a factor of 20 since 1970 (Bygrave,
1997). Similar to other Scandinavian countries, alcohol abuse is also a problem
in Norway. The researcher was able to observe prostitution near the City Police
Station (robberies are also reported from the same area). Persons over the age of
16 can practice prostitution without police checks, and there is also homosexual
prostitution.
Crime data gathered in 1991 indicates that approximately 252,000 felonies
(forbrytelser ) and 99,000 misdemeanors (forseelser) were reported to the
Norwegian police (Bygrave, 1997). These include 50 instances of murder[13],
387 rapes, 177,071 larcenies, and 13,063 drug-related crimes (or about 5 per cent
of all reported felonies) (Bygrave, 1997). Similar to the experiences of other
countries, the proportion of crime increases with population density, resulting
in Oslo county having the highest rate of investigated felonies (124 per 1,000) or
more than twice the national average (52 per 1,000) (Bygrave, 1997).
During patrols with the police, the researcher noted that like other major
urban centers, Oslo presents a city center that looks somewhat disorderly: one
notices trash, shabbily dressed young people and other signs of lack of order. In
the eastern part of Oslo, which is a residential center, there are reports of family
quarrels. There are also break-ins. The western part (Majorstua) of Oslo is a
very quiet and peaceful neighborhood although this part too is not free from
burglaries (many police officers live in the eastern side and the police say that
they cannot afford to buy houses in the western side).

Order maintenance and crime prevention

The British tradition manifests itself in Norwegian police features such as the
generalist police role and the centrality of a crime prevention orientation. The
police in Norway are not in favor of creating specialists; rather, they are
consciously attempting to be an organization of generalists. As a matter of fact
the police have been more and more getting involved in the totality of police
work. At the time of this research, the police in Oslo were going to have a
nucleus of police officers that would attend to all kinds of police activities; they
would be responsible for the total work of policing. Thus, the emphasis was on
PIJPSM the generalist role of the police. Also stemming from the British tradition, there
24,3 is a deliberate effort to emphasize crime prevention and social welfare aspects
of the police role. For example, police officers on patrol are accompanied by
social service workers who attend to drug addicts, troubled youths and other
depressed elements of society[14].
Crime prevention, an important tenet of modern community policing
340 movements around the world, is a major responsibility for police in Norway.
Schaffer (1980) provides an example of community policing in the Manglerud
police station. The Oslo motor center was financed jointly by police,
community members, and motoring organizations and is run by community
workers. It houses a youth club, a non-alcoholic bar, and facilities for repairing
cars and motorcycles. Youths are referred to this centre for any offenses
involving cars or motorcycles, and police and center workers work together to
try to get youths involved in the center’s activities. Another component of the
center is to try to develop ``sensible drinking habits’’ among young people, as
alcoholism is a serious problem in Norway, as in other Scandinavian countries.
Schaffer (1980, p. 84) concludes by stating that ``the local officers have
established good relationships with the community workers which brings them
closer together and gives the police a useful link with the community’’.
In some areas the police catch stray dogs. Police officers can maintain a
trained dog which if used for police work will earn extra money for the officers.
Mounted police are seen in the city. According to the police they are apparently
found effective in crowd control. There are about 14 horses in Oslo.
Norwegian police stations perform watch and ward duties also. They watch
government buildings besides doing foot patrol and ``alarm’’ patrol as directed
by the communication center. During the day, when the parliament is in
session, two police officers from city police station in Oslo are on watch duty.

Police-public interactions in Norway

In Norway, police stations are open to the public in the sense that, unlike police
stations in many parts of the world, such as in the USA or Germany, they are
not heavily guarded. Police officers maintain that they do not socially mix only
with the members of the police. This would suggest that the occupational police
culture may not be as strong compared to police in other countries who feel
more isolated from the public both personally and professionally. For example,
some Norwegian police officers are active in fylke or local-level politics and may
also participate in public demonstrations.
Police officers also transfer from non-police jobs. During the time of this
research, the Politimester (police chief) of the Oslo police department came to
the post after holding the position of the president of the University of Tromsoe
for ten years. He was also judge in a court in the same area. He joined as a
Politikonstabel (police constable), spent several years in the non-police positions
mentioned above, and later he was picked to be the Oslo police chief. Examples
such as this also demonstrate the integration of police with the public and vice
versa, more so than in the USA where police administrators have come up
through the ranks and lateral entry is unusual. This aspect of the Norwegian The police in
police may also dilute the potency of the traditional police culture (e.g. avoiding Norway: a profile
trouble, cynicism, consideration for reward and compensation like any other
worker) (see Slolnick, 1975; Manning and Van Maanen, 1978).
More than 20 years ago, Hjellemo (1979, p. 28) noted that ``the police appear
to be respected and trusted. Problems of corruption have not been shown to
exist’’. The present study finds that not much has changed. First, even those 341
most likely to have a grudge against the police, prisoners, did not talk bitterly
of the police. Second, police corruption does not seem to be a problem in
Norway. In the recent years only one officer from the criminal police in Oslo
was discharged because of taking bribes[15]. Furthermore, the prisoners
interviewed in the Oslo local prison or Kretsfengsel gave the impression that
they thought only about 10 percent of the police were abusive to them.
Police work in Norway does not seem to be dangerous to an observer[16]. A
police constable on patrol with the researcher in Oslo said that he never used
his baton in his 24-year career except once (against a Finnish drunkard who
tried to kick him in the groin). Evidencing an ironic theme of the police
occupational culture, he believes police work to be dangerous but has had little
personal experience with danger. He offered three explanations for why he has
been able to avoid baton use:
(1) he is ``lucky’’;
(2) he is a large man (188 centimeters) so people are dissuaded from
attempting violence; and
(3) his ``customers’’ find his decisions reasonable, and therefore do not want
to use violence against him.
It could be revealing of service- or community-oriented philosophy that he
considers citizens to be customers, which would have an effect on his work
style (e.g. conciliatory versus antagonistic when dealing with citizens). The use
of force, especially deadly force, by police in Norway can be considered
relatively rare because they are only issued wooden batons, and they are
required to write a report whenever it is used. Hence police say that they never
take out the baton (the implication being that they want to avoid the
paperwork).
Police organizations in Norway seem to be very humane organizations. For
example, they have a system that allows mothers to remain in police work on a
half-time basis; they can enjoy this special status for six years without penalty.
Mothers may also work evenings, afternoons, and weekends. This can be
considered evidence of an accommodating, people-oriented organizational
culture. However, this situation is unique to Oslo; in other Norwegian cities
mothers do not enjoy the same privileges.
According to a Politibetjent (sergeant) interviewed by the researcher in Oslo,
the police were not popular with youngsters between 15 and 25, a consistent
finding with regard to police-community relations (Walker, 1999). His reasons
PIJPSM were that the young people wanted independence and that it is during this
24,3 period in their lives that they start their criminal career. He stated that it is
easier to handle criminals who have been experienced in the system because
younger criminals do not know the system and, hence, they are more afraid and
nervous. It was his belief that the nervous ones, like the one described below,
are more prone to antagonism towards the police.
342 Responding to a call, a police car arrived on the compound of a church where
young people were having a party and drinking alcohol. The youths moved out
as the police ordered. The police officer dealing with them was cool and did not
lose his patience. A little while later, the group drinking at the church premises
was found drinking near the same area. The police let them be as they thought
that chasing them would not solve the problem. This is evidence that the
Norwegian police have enormous discretionary authority, similar to their
American and British counterparts (stemming from the low visibility of their
work and limited supervision of patrol officers). Discretion also shapes the
police occupational culture. Although a dated study, Cressey and Elgesem
(1968) found that while a majority of Oslo police surveyed identified with a ``law
enforcement ideology’’, the attitudes of a significant proportion of officers
revealed the existence of a police culture supporting an ``ideology of
adjustment.’’ Specifically, a majority of officers ``agreed that the police should
be strict in the enforcement of the law, but they also agreed that reporting law
violations is not as important as maintaining general peace and order’’ (Cressey
and Elgesem, 1968, p. 53).
The police then dealt with two other young persons ± a girl and a boy. The
police said that they had drugs, but they did not want to take them in as it is too
much work to prove this allegation. Also, the police said that the usual
punishment for drug offenses was a fine. The police in Norway like everywhere
else seem to care more for those offenses that carry heavy punishments ± these
constitute ``real’’ police work.
For many reasons, the most depressed area in Oslo is Hovseter. First, many
people who live in this area are recent immigrants. There are young people
with problems like drug addiction, unemployment, and so on. Also, a
significant proportion of Hovseter’s residents are social welfare recipients. The
center for the Salvation Army, the center for political refugees, and city housing
for the handicapped are located here. The police cooperated with the Salvation
Army in order to help ``glue sniffers.’’ The researcher witnessed the police
handling a glue sniffer while on routine patrol in a park. She was 22 years old,
on welfare, and living with her mother. When the police confronted her, she
was hardly able to talk. The police said that young people sniffed paint thinner,
gasoline, etc. Her boyfriend, who was with her, was a known alcoholic. The
police left him alone. Later, the police returned to the spot where the young girl
and her boyfriend were. This time they found her about to buy drugs. The girl
suddenly got up and became violent, started walking unsteadily and then spat
on the social worker (social workers accompany police when they handle drug
addicts and other such elements who are considered to be in need of help). The
police said that they were afraid of being too near them because of AIDS and so The police in
did not want to intervene. The young couple was allowed to go away. Norway: a profile
Some order maintenance situations do result in the police using their powers
of arrest. For example, during one incident the police were called to deal with
an intoxicated man who was claiming that his girlfriend was in an apartment.
The residents of the apartment, however, said that they did not know the
intoxicated man. The police arrested the man for disorderly conduct, with on- 343
lookers curiously observing their action.
The Greenland area of Oslo comprises about 22 percent foreigners, mainly
Pakistanis. According to the police, it was often a troublesome area, although it
had been recently improving as a result of a city-initiated gentrification
program. This program involved the rebuilding of the old houses. Groups of
Muslim migrants were moving about in the area at the time of the researcher’s
patrol with the police. According to conversations with the ride-along officers,
they resent the influx of foreigners because Pakistanis and Filipino youngsters
often indulge in gang fights. This area also attracts the disorderly conduct of
skinheads and punks. Consequently, police only patrol this area in groups. In
recent raids the police found drug making equipment, knives and other
dangerous tools. While accompanying the police on patrol, the researcher saw
one man making faces at the police. The skinheads and punks also join in
disorders in the city. Even in the quietest area in Oslo, the police maintain, there
are crimes like drugs, auto theft, and so on.

Conclusion
The police in Norway exhibit three distinct characteristics. It has been seen in
the account given above that they have unique native features like a flat
hierarchy, strong union influence, and a system of pervasive intelligence. One
can include among these features such minor matters as sharing a police
gymnasium with the public, housing of police stations in rented private
quarters, informal aspects of recruitment and the role of police officers as
prison guards. Except for the prison guard function, such features appear to be
purely native to Norway. Like most European police, the police in Norway are
directed largely by a central authority, or national government. The police
undertake a number of duties that are purely administrative, such as issuing
passports, gun licenses and so on in the continental tradition. In the special
focus that the police have on crime prevention, the fact that they do not bear
arms, and the practice of police officers as prosecutors, the Norwegian police
demonstrate a strong British influence.
In their aversion to paperwork, complaints against liberal courts, suspicion
of the media as hostile to the police and the like, the police in Norway
demonstrate an occupational culture similar to police elsewhere in the world.
As Das (1986, p. 259) mentioned:
. . . negative consequences of policing as an occupation have received generous attention.
Violence, coercion, prejudice, unscrupulousness, alienation, corruption, cynicism, and so on
are considered inevitable for police officers.
PIJPSM Of course, an observer can note that the police in Norway, like their
24,3 counterparts elsewhere in the world, are influenced by the police occupational
culture. In the final analysis, however, the Norwegian police are unique in that
the police departments are manned by Norwegians, their tasks and policies are
dictated by Norwegian priorities, which are all a product of the social, political,
and physical environment of Norway.
344
Notes
1. Hjellemo (1979) alludes to the year 1687, when new law codes were passed and separate
police chiefs (politimester) were appointed in major towns. According to Hjellemo (1979,
p. 20), this code specified that the police role was to ``embrace the care of order, the spiritual
and material safety and welfare of the subjects, morale, health, commerce, sumptuary
regulations, etc.’’ (p. 20).
2. Becker (1973) traces the modern Norwegian police system to 1866, when the Oslo police
department was organized into bureaus used in modern departments (patrol, detective,
legal, administrative). Hjellemo also cites 1866 when a new city ordinance was passed in
Oslo and a detective division was created, while a law of 1887 created the public
prosecution authority of Norwegian police, further transforming the Norwegian police into
their modern form.
3. Hjellemo (1979, pp. 15-25) argues that the ``principal impact on Nordic governments and
police is now derived from Continental Europe’’ with only ``minor components borrowed
from Robert Peel’s police reform’’.
4. Lensmann had special training in the police school for learning their unique tasks.
Lensmann candidates were assigned to rural police stations after their first period of
training. After completing this assignment, they returned to the police academy and went
through the second phase of training, which included instruction on topics specific to rural
police work.
5. Regarding unions, Becker (1973) notes that police are allowed to join unions but are
prohibited from striking or boycotting by a 1959 amendment to the original Police Act of
1936. This amendment was passed after Oslo police refused to work in 1958; this conflict
caused some police to split from the Norwegian Police Union to create their own Central
Organization of the Police union (Lorentzen, 1980). During the 1970s these unions merged
to become the Nordic Police Association (Hjellemo, 1979; Lorentzen, 1980).
6. According to Becker (1973), these high-ranking officers have two categories of duties. First,
public prosecution duties including making decisions about whether to indict and instigate
criminal proceedings in all offenses; settling these cases by issuing writs when this is
specified by law; and undertaking criminal investigations including arrest and seizure.
Second, other police duties such as order maintenance and administrative activities such as
issuing licenses.
7. Lorentzen (1980) attributes the establishment of ``anti-terror’’ police to the Lillihammer
incident in 1973 where Israeli terrorists fatally shot someone they believed was a
Palestinian agent.
8. Maguire et al. (1998) found that Norway ranked second highest (out of 47 countries) in a
cross-national comparison of the equity, effectiveness, and efficiency of criminal justice
systems.
9. 1993 data show that approximately 8-9 percent of police officers and 4 percent of sheriff
deputies are women, and virtually all officers have a Norwegian background (Bygrave,
1997).
10. Hjellemo (1979) noted that approximately 80-90 percent of misdemeanor offenses are
prosecuted by legal officers who have prosecution authority. These officers are law
 graduates and if the offender gives consent then they may adjudicate the matter ``on the The police in
spot’’ by imposing monetary penalties. Becker (1973) notes that in Norway, officers are
divided into two groups: regular police officers and legal officers, and unless the arrestee Norway: a profile
refuses for the legal officer to adjudicate the case (in which case it is brought before a
criminal court of law), the legal officer has the authority to decide guilt or innocence and
impose punishment (fines, days in jail, etc.).
11. Votley (1983, p. 155) notes that despite a state liquor monopoly, the relatively high price of
alcoholic beverages, and the presence of a strong temperance movement, alcoholism rates 345
remain high in Norway because ``traditions regarding drinking in Norway die hard, if at
all’’.
12. Odegard (1995) found that although the trend in Norway is increasing severity for drug
offenses, a survey of 1,503 adult residents of Norway found that public opinion regarding
punishment and drugs has not changed substantially. The trend toward increasing
severity, therefore, is not due to public demand for harsher penalties. Similarly,
Strangeland (1987) describe Norway’s response to drugs as one of ``harsh penal
sanctions and morality campaigns.’’
13. Chambliss (1978) asserts that the idea that Norway has much lower victimization rates
could partly be a function of different reporting practices. For example, police in Norway
only record a crime as murder after a person has been convicted of murder, whereas, in the
USA police record a crime as murder whenever they find a body with evidence of violence.
14. Schaffer (1980, p. 65) asserts that police in Norway are cynical of this arrangement because
``once a person is handed over to a psychiatrist or social worker as being in need of
psychiatric care, even if he has committed a crime of serious violence, the police have no
role to play. This means that, should the psychiatrist decide that the offender is not in need
of psychiatric treatment, regardless of the offense, he will be released’’. She also states that
cooperation and mutual understanding between police and these workers is not any more
apparent that elsewhere (where presumably these close working relationships do not
exist).
15. Allegations of police corruption or misconduct are investigated by special committees
attached to police stations. Their decisions may be appealed to the Ministry of Justice and
Police, which also handles citizen complaints about police behavior (Bygrave, 1997).
16. Some supporting evidence for this assertion is that Norway has one of the lowest
victimization rates for both personal and property crimes in the industrialized world
(Beirne and Perry, 1994), and Lester and Zunno (1980) found that the murder of law
enforcement officers is correlated with the national murder rate (low murder rate, low rate
of officers killed).

References
Bayley, D.H. (1991), Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Becker, H.K. (1973), Police Systems of Europe: A Survey of Selected Police Organizations, Charles
C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Beirne, P. and Perry, B. (1994), ``Criminal victimization in the industrialized world’’, Crime, Law
and Social Change, Vol. 21, pp. 155-65.
Benyon, J., Morris, S. and Toye, M. et al. (1995), Police Forces in the New European Union:
A Conspectus.
Bygrave, L. (1997), ``Norway’’, in World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems, US Department of
Justice, Washington, DC.
Chambliss, W.J. (1978), Crime Rates, Crime Myths and Official Smokescreens, University of
Stockholm, Stockholm.
PIJPSM Cressey, D.R. and Elgesem, E. (1968), ``The police and the administration of justice’’, in Christie,
N. (Ed.), Aspects of Social Control in Welfare States: Scandinavian Studies in Criminology,
24,3 Vol. 2, Scandinavian University Books, Oslo.
Das, D.K. (1986), ``Organizational police deviance: McNee’s flow (book review)’’, Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 259-64.
Das, D.K. (1993), Policing in Six Countries Around the World, O.I.C.J., University of Illinois Press,
Chicago, IL.
346 Das, D.K. (Ed.) (1994), Police Practice: An International Review, Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ.
Hjellemo, E.O. (1979), ``History of the Nordic police systems ± the evolution of policing in
Denmark and Norway’’, in Knutsson, J., Kuhlhorn, J.E. and Reiss, A. Jr (Eds), Police and the
Social Order: Contemporary Research Perspectives, The National Swedish Council for
Crime Prevention, Stockholm.
Lester, D. and Zunno, F.A. (1980), ``The murder of police officers: comparative studies’’, Police
Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 54-7.
Lorentzen, H. (1980), ``Reinforcing the police ± actors, interests, and strategies’’, in Hauge, R. (Ed.),
Policing Scandinavia: Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, Vol. 7, Scandinavian,
University Books, Oslo.
Maguire, E.R., Howard, G.J. and Newman, G. (1998), ``Measuring the performance of national
criminal justice systems’’, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal
Justice, Vol. 22, pp. 31-59.
Manning, P.K. (1997), Police Work: The Social Organization of Policing, 2nd ed, Waveland Press,
Prospect Heights, IL.
Manning, P.K. and Van Maanen, J. (1978), Policing: A View from the Street, Goodyear Press,
Santa Monica, CA.
Muir, W.K. Jr (1977), Police: Streetcorner Politicians, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Odegard, E. (1995), ``Legality and legitimacy: on attitudes to drugs and social sanctions’’, British
Journal of Criminology, Vol. 35, pp. 525-42.
Schaffer, E.B. (1980), Community Policing, Croom Helm, London.
Slolnick, J.H. (1975), Justice Without Trial, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Strangeland, P. (1987), ``Drugs and drug control’’, Scandinavian Studies in Criminology,
Norwegian University Press, Oslo, Vol. 8.
Votley, H.L. Jr (1983), ``Control of drunken driving accidents in Norway: an econometric
evaluation of behavior under uncertainty’’, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 11, pp. 153-66.
Walker, S. (1999), The Police in America: An Introduction, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

View publication stats